CCC/1370/2025 of SRI NAGAPPA Vs SRI SHREYAS on 20 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This contempt petition seeks action against the accused for willfully and deliberately violating the order passed by this Court on 01.10.2024, in Writ Petition No.18508/2024.

3. The operative part of the order dated 01.10.2024 reads as follows: “4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing respondent No.6 to consider the communication dated 13.06.2023 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-D and

HC-KAR

pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

4. A compliance affidavit is filed by the accused No.1 in the contempt proceeding. Therein, it is stated that the Assistant Director of Land Records, Yelahanka Taluk, has submitted a report bearing No.ADLR(Y)/P.R/366/ 2025-26, dated 15.05.2026. It is stated that the report discloses that the concerned Surveyor had issued prior notices to the interested parties and thereafter conducted survey proceedings on the spot. The report further discloses that on the scheduled date, the survey was conducted in the presence of Police personnel, Village Administrative Officer, parties to the dispute and local villagers present at the spot. During the course of the survey proceedings, the boundaries and measurements relating to Survey No.111/2 belonging to the complainant were identified and demarcated.

HC-KAR

5. Further averments are made in paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of the compliance affidavit, which read as follows: “9. I state that the Assistant Director of Land Records has further reported that the Village Administrative Officer verified the existing boundary marks during the survey proceedings. The report further records that after completion of the survey proceedings, the complainant and certain police personnel present at the spot declined to affix their signatures to the statements and survey records. The said fact has been duly recorded in the Mahazar and Survey Report.

10. I state that the Assistant Director of land Records has accordingly forwarded the survey report along with the survey sketch and connected records for further action. The said report forms part of the official records maintained in the office.

11. I state that the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court was to consider the communication dated 13.06.2023 and take appropriate action in accordance with law. In compliance with the said direction, the matter was referred to the competent survey authorities, notices were issued, survey proceedings were conducted and boundaries were identified and demarcated through the statutory authorities. Thus, complete compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court has been effected.”

HC-KAR

6. Enclosed with the compliance affidavit as Annexure-R1, is a report of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Yelahanka Taluk, Yelahanka, addressed to the Special Tahasildar dated 15.05.2026 evincing the survey. It is stated in the report that the Village Administrative Officer had verified the existing boundary marks and upon completion of the survey, the plaintiff and the police personnel refused to affix their signatures to the statements/proceedings. The same has also been recorded in the spot mahazar. Statements were obtained confirming that survey work was carried out in the presence of the villagers and the Village Administrative Officer present at the site. The report submitted together with the survey sketch/map was stated to be enclosed. It has further been stated that while the Village Administrative Officer had affixed his signature to the statement/proceedings, he refused to sign the survey sketch/map. Annexure-R2 is the survey sketch demarcating Survey No.111/2.

HC-KAR

7. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the order of the learned Single Judge had referred to the report dated 13.06.2023, which is enclosed as Annexure-D to the complaint. He contends that what was required to be surveyed is survey No.111/1 and to mark the boundaries. However, the survey has been done with regard to survey No.111/2.

8. A perusal of the order of the writ Court clearly reflects that it was on the petition moved by one Sri.Nagappa, that an order was passed by the writ Court and admittedly, Sri.Nagappa is concerned with Survey No.111/2. The petitioner's grievance was raised before the learned Single Judge, which was duly considered by passing an order. Therefore, reference being made to the report dated 13.06.2023, by the learned counsel for the complainant is not correct.

9. That apart, Chapter XII of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides for an entire procedure for

HC-KAR

demarcation of boundaries and settlement of boundary disputes. It is for the complainant to avail of such remedy as he may be advised. As far as this contempt case is concerned, we are satisfied that the order of the learned writ Court has been complied with. This petition is therefore, consigned.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

JJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3